Priviledges of Presbyters began then to be abridged but not that their ruling Power in the Church was transferred on a single person the Bishop What he further argueth p. 18. from the Bishops new Ordination is already answered § 26. His next Argument and some that follow is taken from the Bishops relation to his particular Church viz. That he is the principle of Vnity to her who ever adhered to him was in the Church a Catholick Christian who separated from him was out of the Church and a Schismatick Under this Head he hath no less than six Considerations which either are intended as Arguments or signifie nothing Before I come to examine these I shall take some notice of his Argument as it is here generally proposed And 1. I observe that this very Argument is fully with as much strength mannaged by the Papists for the Pop's universal headship over the Christian Church they plead that we are not of the Church Catholick are not to be reputed Christians are Dividers of Christ's Body c. because we do not adhere to the Pope whom they hold to be the Principle of Vnity to the Christian Church and the Papists reckon the Protestants as Hereticks because they do not believe this and Schismaticks because they live not in Communion with the Pope and that Church whereof he is Head 2. This Doctrine as it is by our Author crudely and indistinctly proposed will Un-Church some of the best and soundest Christians for have there not been Bishops who had as good Title to their Sees to speak in his own Dialect as any could have who afterwards turned Hereticks How many Arian Bishops were there whose Right to their Places was not contested Will he say that all the Orthodox who separated from them were guilty of Schism and all the Aggravations that his Citations p. 19 20. load it with Are we not commanded to withdraw from them who teach unsound Doctrine 1 Tim. 6. 3 4 5. And our Lord warnes his People against Wolves and the Apostle gave Warning to the Elders of Ephesus that of themselves and our Author will say they were Diocesan Bishops should men arise speaking perverse things and drawing Disciples after them This Argument will prove if it hath any force that these their Followers were the sound Christians and the rest Schismaticks because the one sort adhered to their Bishop the Principle of Vnity and the rest departed from him I am far from charging my Antagonist with owning these Consequents but I see not how he can shun the Consequence unless he retract this his inconsiderat Opinion Thirdly I wish he had explained this Term the Principle of Vnity which he ought the rather to have done because he saith p. 18. near the end this is a Point of great Consequence What he saith for clearing it is very insufficient his Metaphors out of Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae prove nothing viz. that of the Sun and Beams the Root and Branches the Fountain and Streams if they prove any thing they prove more than I suppose our Author will allow for Cyprian in the very page where he useth these Similitudes p. mihi 297. speaketh of Peter's Primacy and placeth the Unity of the Christian Church in him tamen ut Vnitatem manifestaret unam Cathedram constituit Vnitatis ejusdem Originem ab uno incipientem sua authoritate constituit hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis sed exordium ab Vnitate proficiscitur And a little below quam Vnitatem firmiter tenere vindicare debemus maxime Episcopi qui in Ecclesia praesidemus ut Episcopatum quoque ipsum unum atque indivisum probemus Where it may be observed 1. That either Cyprian was absolutely for the Pope's Supremacy or he had no such meaning as our Author designeth 2. That Cyprian doth not so much speak of the Peoples adhering to their Bishop which in a sound Sense I am for as Bishops cleaving together and not breaking the Churches Peace by Divisions among themselves 3. That he is to be understood of a Principle of Origination rather than of a Principle of Dependance that Peter first was in Commission by Christ the truth of which I shall not now enquire into and that all were obliged to adhere to that one Doctrine that he taught not that he had Authority over the rest and they must not Dissent from him in any Case Cyprian plainly teacheth the contrary in that very place that the rest had equal Authority with him And if we should apply all this to a Bishop or Minister in a Parish it amounteth to no more but this he receiveth the Word from the Lord and delivereth it to the People and if they depart from this they are Schismaticks and break the Unity of the Church which we all acknowledge I observe 4. That this his Principle is indeed of so great Moment that if it be true there are neither Churches nor Christians in the World but such as owne a Diocesan Bishop few in our days are Christians but these of the Romish and Church of England Communion all the Reformed Churches must be Re-baptized and their Ministers Re-ordained as Cyprian and some other thought of the Schismaticks of that time I hope all his Brethren are not of this Opinion Yea it hath been condemned by the most famous of his Party When Anno 1610. some Scots Bishops were to be Consecrated at London some moved that they might be first Ordained Presbyters their Ordination without a Bishop being null Bancroft Arch-Bishop of Canterburâ—y withstood that Motion and told them that thereof there was no necessity seing where Bishops could not be had the Ordination given by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful otherwise that it might be doubted if there were any lawful Vocation in most of the Reformed Churches This was Applauded by all the other Bishops Spotswood Hist. Lib. 7. ad An. 1610. p. 514. Whence I infer that either Cyprian was not of this Author's Opinion nor can his Words be so understood or that the English Bishops were opposite to him and Cyprian too § 27. What he saith further for clearing this his Notion about the Principle of Vnity is both absurd and groundless viz. that he the Bishop was the Head of all the Christians living within his District and they were one Body one Society one Church by depending on him by being subject to him by keeping to his Communion I say this is absurd because then Separating from the most Heretical Superstitious yea Idolatrous Bishop were unlawful as above noted It is also groundless for neither Cyprian nor any other uses such indistinct and universal Assertions in this Matter I come to examine his several Propositions by which he pretendeth to make out this his Argument The first is that the Antients highly Valued Church Vnity and laid no more Stress on any thing than it and no Sin they Represented as more Hainous or
and I think that it will not be denyed that Presbyters are Praepositi and are set over the Church he saith no more then but the Church is founded on the Bishop that is his sound Doctrine as was before explained and her Affairs are ruled by the same Praepositi that is the Bishops and others having Ecclesiastical Authority with them For Presbyters are the same with Bishops in this and that Cyprian meaneth so may be gathered from his varying the word Episcopus into Praepositus Again granting that all the Acts of the Church are ruled by the Bishop this will not prove that they are ruled by him alone His other Testimony out of what he calleth Epistle 43 is far less to his purpose Felicismus with his Faction who formerly had opposed Cyprian's Election to be Bishop in his retirement not only without him but without the Concurrence of the Presbytery or Congregational Eldership I shall not determine which of these the Church of Carthage was then governed by received some of the lapsed which I as well as my Antagonist do reckon a very disorderly Action this Cyprian doth justly blame And that on this Ground that they set up another Altar in that Church that is they threw off the Church Authority that was regularly placed in Carthage and set up another beside we also would blame them who would cast off the Authority of the Presbytery or Kirk-Session and set up another What is Cyprian's meaning is yet clearer from what our Author unwarily citeth out of his Book de unittae Ecclesiae An esse sibi cum Christo videtur qui adversus Christi Sacerdotes facit Qui se à cleri ejus Plebis societate secernit Where he describeth Schisme to be when some depart from the Rulers and Members of the Church not from the Bishop alone and that is to be understood while they keep God's way § 30. His third Preposition is that Cyprian maketh the contempt of one Bishop or undutifulness to him the original of Schisme I am so far from opposing him in this that I think when people begin to quarrel with the meanest of Christs Ministers unless his Life or Doctrine or Government give just cause that they sin against God contemn his Ordinance and are on the brink of Schisme if not Haeresie also And I am sure all that he citeth out out of Cyprian on this head amounteth to no more except a word or two which I shall a little consider When he speaketh of one Bishop I understand him of one Praeses whether in a Congregational or Classical Presbytrey and that in conjunction with them who opposeth such Authority opposeth Christ's Institution He mentioneth p. 23. as also p. 32. The Bishops Monarchical power in the Church and maketh Cyprian prove it by the Bees who have a King the Beasts who have a Captain and Robbers who have a Chiftain It is evident to any who consider Cyprian's other Writings that he never arrogated to himself a Monarchical Power over the Church for he plainly disowneth it as we shall after have occasion to shew But he is here dealing with one Pupianus who had reproached Cyprian as proud and arrogant here Cyprian defendeth himself and retorteth the same Charge of Arrogance on Pupianus in that he took on him to arraign the Bishops and Rulers of the Church and had denyed his power in the Church and he sheweth what Inconveniency it were to the Church if all this time the Church of Carthage had been governed by a Man who had no Authority and in this he bringeth the similitude of the Bees c. Will any think that Cyprian was so weak as to take this for a sufficient Argument to prove Monarchical Power in the Church he only bringeth it as a similitude to illustrate this Truth that there must be a Government in the Church and it had been ill with the Church of Carthage if so long a time they had One over them who was no lawful Ruler which is no Determination of the Extent of Cyprian's power Neither was that the Question between him and Pupianus § 31. I proceed to his fourth Proposition p. 24. The Bishop was so much the principle of Vnity the people had such Dependence on him and was so virtually in him that what he did as Bishop was reputed the Deed of the whole Church which he ruled And to confirm this he bringeth Instances that Churches were blamed for communicating with criminal Bishops and that they did not separat from them and are commended for the Bishops owning the Truth Had our Author thought fit to peruse and consider his Papers before he printed them it is like we should not have been troubled with such crude Notions For 1. How can this be reconciled to what he had a little before-pleaded concerning the horrid sinfulness of separating from their Bishop and this without any distinction or Limitation 2. He is so unwise as to add one word that spoileth all his Design viz. As Bishop for what a Bishop acteth as Bishop he acteth in the Consistory or the Presbytery and by the plurality of their Votes and that is indeed the Fact of the Church Representative and of the Church diffusive too if they shew no dislike of it But this is no Semblance of Proof of the Power of Bishops that he pleadeth for Cyprian's Rhetorical flourish in saying that when Cornelius confessed the Faith before the Persecutors the whole Roman Church confessed Is no more but that Cornelius gave a faithful Testimony to that Doctrine that he had preached among that People and that they received and did still owne is this an Argument that Cornelius had the sole Power of Church-Government in Rome Yea all this might have been said of any Member of that Church who had so confessed and the Church did not reclaim but professed the same Truth It is far less probative that Cyprian desired to suffer at Carthage rather than else where that he might in Confession be the Mouth of them all And least of all is it an Argument that he calleth them his Bowels his Body their Grief was his Grief c. We must abandon all Sense and Reason if these pass for concludent Arguments Of the same weight is what he bringeth out of Pontius of the Blessedness of the people of Carthage who suffered together with such a Bishop I beg the Readers pardon for troubling him with such silly Arguments which need no Answer § 32. His fifth Proposition that the Bishops being the principle of Vnion to his Church was held before the Cyprianick Age This I say needeth no further Animadversion for it bringeth no new thing Neither is it to be imagined that Ignatius whom he citeth meant that the sole Authority of the Bishop rather than the Doctrine that he taught from the infallible Word of God was the Principle of Vnity to the Church Or that they who belong to Christ are with the Bishop whether he teacheth Truth or
against Felicissimus and Augendus which they executed against them and some others If this Discourse prove such a Power of Delegation it will also prove such a Power in one Bishop over another which our Author will not allow seing he asserteth p. 27 28 35. that every Bishop is supreme and hath no Ecclesiastical Superior on Earth 2. Sending a Messenger to do for us what we are restrained from doing is not always an Act of Authority one Friend may send another if he yield to it as well as a Master may send his Servant 3. That which hath most Weight in our main Cause tho' it be impertinent to the present purpose is that these Persons were to Excommunicat Felicissimus c. To which I Answer that this Excommunication might be Determined by the Presbytery and it was Cyprian's part as Moderator to intimate it for which he substituteth the Persons named Here is no sole Power of Excommunication This is Countenanced by Cyprian's own words in that Ep. § 2. that Felicissimus had despised both him and the Presbytery Nec meo honore motus nec vestra authoritate fractus It seems he had been tried before them and Sentenced for Contumacy Further he was also suspected of Adultery which Cyprian would not judge by himself but referred it to their Meeting ibid. § 48. Having now examined our Author's first Principle I proceed to the second which he advanceth p. 50 c. It is that in every thing relating to the Government of the Church and her Discipline the Bishop had a Negative over all the other Church-Governours within his District he had the supreme Power of the Keyes He setteth about the proving of this Point with a high Degree of Confidence but let not him that putteth on his Armour boast as he that putteth it off He pretendeth to shew that Presbyters could not Baptize nor Administer the Lord's Supper nor Excommunicate nor Absolve nor Make nor Rescind Ecclesiastical Laws without the Bishop's Allowance For a foundation to our Answer to all his Discourse on this Head I shall re-mind the Reader of a Distinction of Presbyters above-mentioned They were in Cyprian's time of three sorts 1. The Ruling Elders who were no Preachers and who with the Bishop or Parish Minister and other Preaching Presbyters if there were any made up the Consistory by which the Affairs of the Congregation were managed These I confess could Administer no Sacrament neither without nor with the Bishop's Licence And for Acts of Ruling in the Church it is probable enough that they could do nothing without him who was Praeses in their Meetings except may be in some extraordinary Cases 2. There were in some Churches especially in great Cities some Presbyters who were Ordained to the Work of the Ministry but had no particular Charge and were as our Probationers or Students in Divinity Schools only with this Difference that ours are not Ordained these might not Baptize nor Administer the Eucharist yea nor Preach without the Allowance of the Bishop or Parish Minister And it is so also among us if some Ordained Ministers happen to live in a Parish whereof they are not Pastors as sometimes falleth out in great Cities it is disorderly for them to exercise their Ministery within another man's Charge without his Call or Allowance These Presbyters in Cyprian's time were in somethings like Evangelists whom the Bishops imployed when themselves could not overtake all their Work and if these be called the Bishop's Curats as our Author doth all Presbyters I shall not much reclaim These were as the Sons of the Prophets bred by the Bishop for the Ministery of this sort of Presbyters see P. Baynes Diocesan's Tryal p. 63. A third sort of Presbyters were the Ministers of the several Parishes among whom the Moderator of the Presbytery or other Church Judicatory was in a peculiar manner called the Bishop and they also often were called Bishops with respect to their own Parochial Charge Now if our Author mean that a Bishop in a City had such Power over the Presbyters or Ministers in the Villages or Places about that they might not Baptize c. without his Allowance I utterly deny it and maintain that every such Presbyter Minister or Parochial Bishop by what ever name ye design him had in Cyprian's time as full Power in his Parish as the great Bishop had in his tho' the one was more in esteem than the other § 49. I shall now consider his Proofs for what he affirmeth He beginneth with Baptism and pretendeth to prove that Presbyters could not Baptize without the Bishop's Leave His first Citation is Cyprian saith Bishops give the first Baptism to Believers Which we deny not if ye understand it of Parish Ministers But if he mean Bishops in Cities who were the Praesidents in Presbyteries we deny that Cyprian asserteth that His next Testimony is out of Cyprian Ep. 73. and Firmil and Fortunatus Bishop of Thurobaris But it is evident and he confesseth it that the Question by them treated is whether Presbyters who by Heresie or Schism had departed from the Communion of the Church might Baptize and if they they did whether that Baptism was valid or the Person was to be again Baptized and that Baptism esteemed null And in this we do so far agree with these Fathers as to think that all the Administrations of such Hereticks or Schismaticks are irregular and to be condemned and that none ought so to separate from the Church while she keepeth the Way of Truth and requireth no unlawful Terms of Communion of her Ministers or other Members But none of these Fathers did ever Assert that in the Church a sound Presbyter could not Baptize without the Bishop's Leave within the Limits of his own Charge That they mean no more than I say is evident for they plead that none can Baptize out of the Church nor Bind or Loose out of the Church and they say expresly that none can Baptize but they who are Founded in the Evangelical Law and I hope it will not be denyed that Ministers of Congregations are Founded on that Law as well as these of great Cities who were then called Bishops because of their Praecedency in Church Meetings That Bishops are named in these Reasonings as having the Power of Baptizing maketh nothing against us because all Parish Ministers were so called and none without their Allowance ought to intrude on their Charge in this or any other Administration and because the Authority for Baptizing and other Church Work was Communicated from the Presbytery by their Praesident the Bishop he indeed gave the Power but not by his own sole Authority but by that of the Presbytery The testimony of Tertullian cometh next who saith de Baptismo cap. 17. the High Priest who is the Bishop hath the Power of Baptizing and after him or in Subordination to him saith our Author Presbyters and Deacons A. 1. Tertullian doth not speak of Bishops as distinct from the
Presbytery and Monarchie of Church and State have suited one another many Ages since the Nation was Protestant The Authors Antagonist had expressed his Wonder how Presbytery could suit Monarchie in the State I confess I was not so critical as to impute to him that he meant Presbytery in the State and Monarchy in the State For I cannot discover Non-sense where it is not even in an Adversary as this sensible Man can And I plainly answered that these two Governments viz. Presbytery in the Church and Monarchy in the State did suit one another Whether the Non-sense is in my Expression or in my Adversaries apprehension let the Reader judge Also whether a Handle is here given for a Cavil or Malice or Ignorance hath supplyed it § 10. Another thing wherein he hath a mind to find Non-sense is Animadvers on Stillingfleets Irenicum p. 5. where the learned Dr. having asserted that where there are different Opinions and probable Arguments on both sides if it be not a matter necessary to Salvation it giveth ground to think that that matter in Controversy was never intended for a necessary mean for Peace and Vnity in the Church On this occasion G. R. was bold to say that if things not necessary to Salvation must needs be thus clearly revealed much more this clearness is needful in things necessary to Salvation The Non-sense of this I cannot yet perceive and I think this Author not by his piercing Judgement but by this tinctured Fancy was the first that discovered it And I cannot shun still to think that the Fundamental Truths should be and are revealed with more evidence than the inferior Truths and that the Lord would not have us to venture our Salvation on that obscurity of Revelation that we may not venture the Peace of the Church on if that were at Stake But the best is that the peace of the Church dependeth not so much on Oneness of Opinion about some inferior Truths as in honest endeavours after that and in mutual forbearance where it cannot be attained I am litle concerned in his not believing a Typographical Error in a passage about the Decrees of God which a Friend of his if not himself had observed and I had solemnly disowned and do still disowne as what I never thought spoke nor wrote It seems he measureth the veracity of others by his own But he will prove what he affirmeth That Book was Re-printed in England without Alteration or Correction Ergo it was the Authors not the Printers Error A wise Consequence indeed if it went abroad with that Error as I deny not it did it is no wonder it was Re-printed with it but that it was ever Re-printed is more than I know or ever heard before if he will not believe me in this I hope some others will He next setteth the black Mark of Non-sense on the Arguments I bring against a stinted Liturgy of mans Composure Rational Def. p. 226. I can see nothing but tollerable Sense and some strength of Reason in these Arguments when I review them after many years And our Author thought not fit to discover it to us and therefore they must even stand as they were Only this great Judge of Non-sense sheweth us that the Lords Prayer is a set Form and disowned by Presbyterians and therefore that must be here included Answer that Prayer if a set Form that is if it be enjoined to be rehearsed in publick Worship is not a set Form of mans devising and therefore falleth not under the Arguments that he opposeth Neither do Presbyterians disown that Prayer but use it as a Directory for Prayer and if any will repeat the words in solemn Worship they do not censure them He hinteth tho' so confusedly that I cannot make Sense of his Refutation of Non-sense that we are Quakers because against Liturgies We find no Liturgies in the Apostolick Church and yet they were no Quakers if all praying without Book were Enthusiasm as he ignorantly insinuateth many Episcopal men must be such for they do not always use the Book His retorting the Argument on extemporary Prayer is strangely wide and hath been often answered But this Author's business is not to clear Truth but to run down a certain person whom he hath in chase Extemporary Prayer imposeth neither Matter nor Frame or Composure on the Hearers and Joyner further than Nature it self maketh necessary where people pray together but set Forms do § 11. Yet more Non-sense his Antagonist speaketh of the Popish Church of Scotland and of the Protestant Church also often of the Episcopal and Presbyterian Church there whereas the Church is but one Which this Author is at much pains to expose but by mishape exposeth himself in so doing I list not to contend about words whether you call a divided Church as Scotland was while partly popish and partly Protestant and novv is vvhole partly Presbyterian and partly Episcopal two Churches or one Church rent in two peices I think is not material I see no Non-sense in either way of speaking Both Parties or Churches if permitted must have their Government and Governours neither is it fit that they should rule that Church or part of the Church to which they are opposite and which they would destroy It is wholly beside this purpose that he bringeth in of my blaming Dr. Stillingfleet for making the Vnity of the Church of England consist in two Convocations which our Author doth so grosly mistake for the Upper and Lower Houses of one Convocation whereas that Author doth make two Convocations in two distinct Provinces p. 300 for that is one Church united in it's parts not divided into Parties as the Church we speak of And it 's less intelligible how that should have two Heads than in this case Why two Parties may not be called two governing Bodies in a divided Church I cannot yet understand for all his Story of the Platonick Monster That no Head is mentioned why should he wonder unless he think a visible Head of the Church in a single person is necessary in such Metaphorick Speeches there is no matter of moment whether ye call the governing Part of a Church a Body or a Head but enough of this quibling on this Head § 12. Our Author's next Essay is to set forth his Antagonist's ill Nature in which Discourse every one may see how manifestly and fully he setteth forth that Temper of Mind in himself which he blameth in another most of the Passages he insisteth on were written against some Pamphlets which contain the most false and injurious Imputations and that not against a Person only but against all the Presbyterians without Discrimination yea against the whole Nation in it's Representative the Parliament and many of these Assertions are proved to be false and if a certain Author by a Book which gave less occasion was by every Line provoked to the Indecency of Passion what wonder if just Indignation was warmly expressed against such Abusive
Treatment If I have called any thing Lies Railing Sauciness Impudence which was not so I am content to underly the just Sentence of unbyassed men but this Author and his Complices take a Boundless Liberty to Reproach and if they be told of it they are Clamorous beyond Measure It is not inconsistent with all that Civility that is due to men to give things their true Names especially where the Rank and Behaviour of the Persons we deal with plead no extraordinary Respect He mistaketh when he saith that I knew that the Author of the Memorial was dead before I answered his Book I do not to this day know who was the Author of it What was said about giving up King Charles the first to England should have been refuted by Reason not by Quibling I have no Answer for such Arguments neither have I time to examine how fairly all the words are cited which he adduceth nor to shew on what occasion or on what necessity they were written what he representeth as spoken of the Prelatists is injuriously blamed it was spoken of a Party of them who are but few who reproached the Presbyterians in general and in the most universal Terms which never was my way against them § 13. If any thing hath dropt from my Pen which may be judged Uncivil or short of due Respect toward the Learned and Reverend Dr. Stillingfleet I am ready to crave him pardon for I designed the contrary what this Author chargeth me with that way is partly false as what he citeth out of the Preface to Animadv on Irenic for both the Prefaces I have seen one at some Copies and another at other Copies were written by another hand without the knowledge of the Author partly they are fouly misrepresented to give an Instance this Author faith that I said of Dr. Stillingfleet p. 18. that for the most part he doth nothing but magno conatu nihil agere This is misrepresented I said that he insisteth most on things not controverted and thence inferred the blame mentioned It is one thing to charge one directly with an Opinion or Practice and another to make an Inference from it seing many do or say that the ill Consequence of which they do not observe but will disowne His other Citations are but a just Censure one some Passages of that Learned Author's Writings which I was examining which cannot be shunned in Polemick Writings to call that a Contradiction that I make appear to be such is no Injury nor Breach of that Civility that is due to a Stated Adversary many things are fair enough in open War which were not so in a State of Peace This Author is yet more injurious in expounding all that I have said of a few men of imbittered Spirits among the Prelatists who have in their Writings reproacht the Presbyterians and imputed to them things that they are innocent of or abhor applying all this I say to all them who are of the Episcopal Perswasion or to the Party in general as that they are Esaus Serpents Spiteful c. I challenge him to prove what he saith I deny it if I have said any thing of Immorality among the Clergy it is too evident tho' I know some of them are innocent and lament it What he citeth as spoken against the Church of England and her Clergy is either what is in Controversie between us and them I have been so bold as to call their Liturgy and Ceremonies Superstition and to mention what is the Native Concomitant of Superstition that men will be wiser than Christ or his Apostles This is no more a Crime than it is a Fault to be opposite to their way What is said of Immoralities and Insufficiency for the Ministery and other Corruptions that are among them is not chargeable on me yea nor on Presbyterians alone but it is the Complaint of the best among themselves see the five Groans of the Church and Mr. Bold ' s Serm. These Authors were truly Sons of the Church of England thousands among them complain of these things who yet adhere to that Communion I might well disowne that Principle of Sentencing Executing Kings by their Subjects about which some of the Church of England had informed forreign Divines as the Principle and Doctrine of Presbyterians because the Generality of Presbyterians in Scotland very few excepted and these turned Independents after shewed their Abhorrence of that Fact committed on King Charles the first so they did in England and some of them suffered Death for owning his Son Is it Incivility to the Church of England that I thought at the time of the late Revolution it was fit for Parties to put in their Claim for what they thought the way of GOD that it might be judged of by them who had Authority if the Church of England think we ought not to mutter against the Corruptions of their way nor seek a Remedy in an orderly and legal way they may know that we pretend to no such Civility as is inconsistent with Faithfulness to the Truth and Ordinances of Christ We are for the Purity of the Church of England and for her Peace too so as not to meddle with her without our Sphere but if speaking or writing for the good way that we owne do disquiet her with respect to her Corruptions we must be excused It is a wise Assertion he exhorteth his Readers to purge the Church of England c. I exhorted none to this Attempt but in their Station such as many have not his Expression soundeth as if I had stirred all up that should read this Book to fall on the Church of England and pull her down § 14. Impudence is the next Epithet that he laboureth to fix on the man of his Wrath. Instances are It is abscribed to Cunning that their Books reproaching the Presbyterians were spread in England but hard to be found in Scotland which he imputeth to want of Liberty for Printing such Pieces in Scotland and hazard in importing them but it is sufficiently known that many Books of that strain have been imported and none seized that I hear of but one Parcel which was of another strain Next it is Impudence to assert the Loyalty of Presbyterians Answ It is more Impudence to ascribe to Presbyterians what was the Practices of some few with which the far greatest part neither did nor would concur What was said on this Head was also proved and it is Impudence to put such a Mark on any Assertion and yet not attempt to answer the Arguments brought for it Another Impudence is to speak of the Harmlesness of Presbyterians and that they are no Persecutors And that any one of many of them suffered more Hardships and Barbarous Cruelty than all the Espiscopalians have endured the Impudence of this he proveth very learnedly how could one man suffer the deprivation of five or six hundred Livelyhoods That there were so many Episcopal Ministers turned out I suppose these he